polarizer for 12-24 DX

Dave :

Depends on the light conditions...

I've shot with a CP and also a Singh-Ray B/G CP, and generally don't get vignetting, but occasionally when the light angle is "just so" the polarisation effect is severe in the corners. I'd say this is a problem in maybe 1 out of 75 shots for me.

You will see some effect in the corners in some shots at 12mm, make no mistake, but not necessarily true vignetting.


John P.

 

I've been using the normal B+W Cir. Pol MRC with no vignetting on the 12mm side. That being said, the filter effect will not cover the whole FOV. For example, when using the filter to darken a blue sky, you'll see the effect in only some part of the sky but not all parts. Use it carefully and you can create some interesting effects though.

 

Hoya makes a thin CP as well. I use it with my 12-24 without effect.

An after thought. Make sure you get one with a little white "tick" mark on the rotating plate. I bought one which did not have any. The way I've been taught is to rotate the mark towards the direction of the sun. Without the mark would have to figure out how to use it every time. There are enough factors to keep track of without having to try and remember how to set a CP plate.

Rich

 

Only polarizers I use are "Moose" CP by hoya



:>)))

 

For which camera ? Many nikon bodies have relatively weak IR filter (that is filters that let the visible light in filtering the IR out), and IR pollution can be a concern (more than UV IMHO). Therefore what you want is not a UV/skylight filter, but a UV+IR filter: B+W486

Thierry

 

Re: thanks everyone

I've bought this filter a few months ago, and did a few tests with/without the filter with my D70 (mostly with a 70-200 2.8G AFS VR ED IF). While I've seen on the dpreview d70 forum a few pics where IR pollution was very strong, my tests show a more subtle difference. It depends on the light and what is being photographed. But it definitely is there and the effect is always detrimental, even if so slightly, to the pic. It is not uniform accross the pic, and how much is there is very depending on the reflecting material, and the lighting. Good luck correcting in post, or trying to correct it with some sort of profiling.

Definitely much more useful than the UV filter, IMO, if your camera is somewhat sensitive to IR (all the CCD/CMOS sensors are, but Canon for instance uses a strong heat filter in front of its sensors).

Thierry

 

Lot's of good info here. I have a D70 as well, but didn't know that it was prone to IR pollution. After reading Thom's article on filters, I've stopped using my UV and will only use it under certain circumstances. I realize that B+W is quality glass, but it is extra glass between sensor and subject.

 

Why anyone would do his photography the harm of using a polariser on a 12 mm lens is beyond me. But each to his own, I guess.

Most of our beloved Nikon DSLRs are susceptible to IR contamination, however, this doesn't imply IR always is an issue. For outdoor shooting, the issue, as with film, is more on the UV side (UV makes the sky colours wash out and add to the problem with overexposed sky). Multicoated lenses do attenuate the UV transmitted by them, but in the upper UV-A range (say 390 to 400 nm), even modern lenses pass significant amounts of UV.

IR typically becomes an issue under two conditions: 1. with flash because all flash units emit strong in IR, and 2. under indoor lighting because some of the light sources may add relatively high amount of. IR, and since the same source is deficient in blue and IR may influence red and blue pixel sites, white-balancing the shots may be tricky and lead to colour impurity. Also note that most dark fabrics are chemically treated and may reflect very strong in IR, or that human skin is a strong IR reflector, and you can understand why colour rendition sometimes can be way off.

 

Geeee I was about to post...Ask Bjorn :>))))))

Love your interview. Have it saved :>))

Thank you !! You are truly an incredible man.